How do less abortions benefit society...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2008
How do less abortions benefit society...
510
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 1:11pm

I am not sure quite where to put these questions - but this seems like the right place. This thought process is all a little garbled in my brain - so hopefully it will make sense.

Traditional politics puts liberals as pro-choice and anti-death penalty...
Conservatives are typically pro-life and pro death penalty....

Neither stance makes much sense (although I would lean towards saying it is more fair to kill criminals and save babies if I had to choose). Either all life is precious or not. I lean towards "not".

I am desperately trying to have my own baby, so I am pro-babies. I had a miscarriage at 8 weeks, and that absolutely was a baby that I lost. I am in counseling to deal with my loss. I also have an older child, so I know what it means to love a child.

Life begins at conception, and a baby is a baby as soon as it is there.

But I am really okay if you want to kill your baby when it cannot survive on it's own. Once it can survive, well, that gets complicated, because it does have the rights of a person. But until then, it is yours to kill - not mine. I have no religious persuasion that thinks you will have any moral repercussions.

On to the question (take religion out of this): if a mother can understand that her baby is a baby, it is alive, sees it on an ultrasound, is counseled on the potentially devastating emotional effects of abortion, but still chooses to take it's life - then where is the argument against abortion?

We are a secular nation, although many of our citizens believe in a God, we have a separation of church and state.

If I choose to believe that a slice of cheese created the universe, and I should eat cheddar cheese three times a day in order to show my reverence to my Cheese God - I can do that. I cannot force Christians (or any religion) to eat cheese three times a day, and they cannot tell me that abortion is morally wrong based on their God either.

Sorry.... back to the questions? Without morality - is there anything showing that preventing abortions will benefit the society as a whole? That was a long way to get to a simple question.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 1:28pm

>>I am not sure quite where to put these questions - but this seems like the right place. This thought process is all a little garbled in my brain - so hopefully it will make sense.<<

No worries garbled goop is our specialty around here

>>Traditional politics puts liberals as pro-choice and anti-death penalty...
Conservatives are typically pro-life and pro death penalty....<<

I will take your word for that one. I am not American

>>Neither stance makes much sense (although I would lean towards saying it is more fair to kill criminals and save babies if I had to choose). Either all life is precious or not. I lean towards "not".<<

Me too killing baies is bad.

>>I am desperately trying to have my own baby, so I am pro-babies. I had a miscarriage at 8 weeks, and that absolutely was a baby that I lost. I am in counseling to deal with my loss. I also have an older child, so I know what it means to love a child.<<

Sorry to hear about your loss.

>>Life begins at conception, and a baby is a baby as soon as it is there.<<

Actually life begins before conception as both sperm and eggs are alive. I believe what you are trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is that ensoulment happens at conception.

Also while I will agree that a new human is created at conception there is no baby. Baby is a term used to describe a period of life from 0-12 months (sometimes 24 months) just as senior is a term used to describe a period of life (65 years plus). Prior to birth it is a zygote/embryo/or fetus (from here on in it will be Z/E/F).

While a z/e/f is human it is not a baby.

I would recommend just sticking to proper terminology or you are going to spend all your time arguing semantics.

>>But I am really okay if you want to kill your baby when it cannot survive on it's own. Once it can survive, well, that gets complicated, because it does have the rights of a person. But until then, it is yours to kill - not mine. I have no religious persuasion that thinks you will have any moral repercussions.<<

Actually it does not have the rights of a person. Rights and personhood are legal terms neither of which pertain to a fetus as the laws currently stand. Morally it may be viewed as a human equal to it's mother though. IS that what you meant?

>>On to the question (take religion out of this): if a mother can understand that her baby is a baby, it is alive, sees it on an ultrasound, is counseled on the potentially devastating emotional effects of abortion, but still chooses to take it's life - then where is the argument against abortion?<<

A mother can understand that IF she carries far enough into the pregnancy to deliver she will have a baby. Right not what she has is a z/e/f. As for where is the argument against abortion? It is a moral argument for me (and for many others) I don't think that si what you were asking though so can you rephrase it?

>>We are a secular nation, although many of our citizens believe in a God, we have a separation of church and state.<<

You have a hypothetical separation IMO as Christmas is a government holiday.

>>If I choose to believe that a slice of cheese created the universe, and I should eat cheddar cheese three times a day in order to show my reverence to my Cheese God - I can do that. I cannot force Christians (or any religion) to eat cheese three times a day, and they cannot tell me that abortion is morally wrong based on their God either.<<

Sure they can. they can tell you whatever they want. Just as you can tell them whatever you want. Bottom line is SOMEBODYS morality is going to be legislated so we are left with the task of trying to figure out which set of moral standards is best for the populace as a whole.

>>Sorry.... back to the questions? Without morality - is there anything showing that preventing abortions will benefit the society as a whole? That was a long way to get to a simple question.<<

Without religion yes. Morality can and often is very separate from religion. I know of no one (both PC and PL) who does not consult their own moral compass when deciding where they stand on the issue.





&_c02_owner=1&_c=blogpart" />



Photobucket

I love my computer
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 1:30pm

"Without morality - is there anything showing that preventing abortions will benefit the society as a whole?"

I think that since this question is vague and could go in more than one direction, I'll answer at least the most obvious two.

The first, of course, is preventing abortion by decreasing demand for it. I do think that there is a benefit here, because abortion is an expensive, painful procedure that is so much more complicated and controversial than preventing the pregnancy in the first place. I am firmly in support of accurate sex education and cheap and easy access to effective forms of contraception. Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

The second (the one I think you're actually talking about) is preventing legal abortion. I think that the studies have shown pretty clearly that making abortion legal limits some people from having abortions, but not to a degree that is so significant that we could consider it some kind of scientific eureka. Part of the problem with making abortion illegal is stated within your post: "Life begins at conception, and a baby is a baby as soon as it is there." According to people who would legislate based on that stated belief of yours, most forms of contraception (the pill and its derivative forms and IUD, for example) would also have to be illegal as well, as they do not always prevent fertilization but also prevent implantation in the event that fertilization occurs. So there are many organizations that believe that abortion should be illegal that also believe that these forms of birth control should also be illegal- severely limiting women's ability to prevent pregnancy.

Beyond that, every now and then I hear a story about the inauspicious beginnings of some famous person with the ending being, "Now, if he had been aborted, we never would have had..." I think Leonardo da Vinci is a popular choice for a subject in this story. To respond to this argument, my popular choice for a subject is Hitler. I can see the reasoning in this argument, but we can't go back in time; therefore, arguments about what should have been legal/illegal in the past based on what we know now is folly.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 1:38pm

"On to the question (take religion out of this): if a mother can understand that her baby is a baby, it is alive, sees it on an ultrasound, is counseled on the potentially devastating emotional effects of abortion, but still chooses to take it's life - then where is the argument against abortion?"

Exactly. I was a mother to a 2 year old, went through extensive counseling, saw my ultrasound, and kept a copy of the sonogram and *still* went on to abort. I have not had one ounce of regret in the 3 years that have since passed.

I don't know why society cares...holier than thou attitudes perhaps?

melissajune21.jpg picture by ambersspace


&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 5:36pm

<>


Even with morality, I don't think that there is anyting SHOWING that society as a whole would benefit without abortions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 5:51pm

Off TOPIC:


While I am most certainly NO Hitler supporter consider the following:


-Without Hitler and the hell he put the world though - there would be no Isreal or Jewish State.


-Without Hitler there would be no highways - his Audobahn was the first.


-No Volkswagon (people's car)


-Solar Power is often attributed to him.


-Smores


-Kindergarden


AWFUL horrible man - AGREED!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 6:36pm

<<-Without Hitler and the hell he put the world though - there would be no Isreal or Jewish State.>>

Some people would consider that a good thing.

<<-Without Hitler there would be no highways - his Audobahn was the first.>>

I somehow doubt it would not have been figured out sooner or later ;-)

<

Same to be said of Ceaser, Napolean, and other demented, evil people. Ever heard the phrase - "Hitler loved kittens?" Odd phrase - but in shows that there are many sides to a person's mark on this earth.

Helen Keller was a diehard Socialist for example.

Unfortunately, the bad help make up the world too - and in their own way, sometimes it is because of their evil that the good comes out of it all.>>

I am lad that now you will be able to give credit where credit is due to Margaret Sanger ;-)

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 6:53pm

<>


Sure - she fought the good fight for birth control and the right to it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 7:04pm

Just to clarify, most on the list predated Hitler:


- the first highway was in Italy, back in 1924.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 7:19pm

Audobahn - per Hitler's vision the use of the highway as WE know it is attributed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 7:48pm

"Even with morality, I don't think that there is anyting SHOWING that society as a whole would benefit without abortions. Likewise, there is nothing but opinion that society is better WITH abortion.

I guess for me, when i see or know of a girl who had a baby as a teen and still finished school and went to college, or a battered wife who had her baby and still was able to excape the relationship, or a poor when first pregnant woman who has succeeded in life with her child in tow, or the family that has adopted the child a woman didn't have the stomach to terminate, or the woman who is at peace (although always in mourning) for placing her child for adoption, or the child who succeeded under all of the 'reasons' to abort - I see a clear example that abortion doesn't 'have' to be.

Once a woman aborts - there is no way that she will ever know if it was indeed 'neccissary' or not. How can she know if she could have done most, if not all, of the things she wanted to with her child intact? How will she know that the parallell life she would have led would not have been equally satisfying or sucessful? She cannot know.

Again, there is nothing SHOWING that society would be better. It is left strictly to opinion."

Good post.

Photobucket
Photobucket 

Pages